On the day of the controversial recall, UCLA professors are
split on whether this could be a landmark in California politics,
or just another four-digit date for future history students to
memorize.
The recall has been praised and damned constantly since it was
certified on July 23, but its legacy is still unclear.
Some, like Professor Matthew Baum of the political science
department, view the recall’s effects as temporary.
“We could see a greater degree of party hostility, but it
is more likely that it will be another blip on the radar
screen,” he said.
Baum suggested the recall could have historical consequences on
a small scale. He gave the example that if Arnold Schwarzenegger is
elected, it could be beneficial for President Bush’s campaign
in 2004.
Although he doubts it himself, Baum said the recall could have
broader significance if it causes a deterioration of the political
process ““ the slippery slope of continuous recalls that many
fear.
However, other academics such as political science Professor
Barbara Sinclair believe that the recall could change the way
politicians operate and lead to a “tit for tat” cycle
of political reciprocity and retribution.
“We live in a period of highly partisan politics … Even
if Davis beats the recall, it will have that demonstration effect,
and people will see it as a useful weapon,” Sinclair
said.
Sinclair said even if the recall does not result in this type of
cycle, it could force politicians to spend even more time looking
over their shoulders.
“It could mean that people are less willing to make hard
decisions, to lead instead of simply following the opinion
polls,” Sinclair said.
Political science Professor Thomas Schwartz said the recall is
historically important primarily because this is the first time
California has had a statewide recall, as the recall has
traditionally been a political tool parties use to discipline their
members on a smaller scale.
Unlike Sinclair, Schwartz does not see the recall as having
lasting political effects.
Rather, he said the recall may be a reaction to Davis’
large scale intervention in the last gubernatorial Republican
primary, when he spent a large amount of money campaigning against
Richard Riordan, so that he could run against Bill Simon, the
candidate he considered to be weaker.
Schwartz said this caused many people to think of the way Davis
was elected as illegitimate.
He drew a parallel to the original intent of recall, which was
to provide a democratic way to throw out a leader who took office
by manipulating the electoral process. The progressives who
originally proposed the idea of recall were reacting to the control
the Southern Pacific Railroad company had over California by buying
off elected officials.
Thus, Schwartz does not believe the current recall is an abuse
of the process, or that the recall will lead to other statewide
recalls.
“It’s such an unusual thing following such an
unusually bitter regular gubernatorial campaign that you
can’t draw any portentous allusions,” he said.
Baum has personal doubts about the recall’s legitimacy,
but agrees that it is constitutional, and said that its legitimacy
is purely a partisan matter.
“It is constitutional, but very squarely in the realm of
absurd,” he said.
Many professors disagree about the legacy of the recall, but one
thing on which they generally agree is that the raised level of
voter awareness will be short-lived.
“Past experience suggests that voters who tune in today
will tune out tomorrow when no celebrity is present,” Baum
said.
With reports from Shaun Bishop, Bruin Reporter.